Wearing Armbands In Public Schools Case Brief
Facts
In December of 1965 fifteen year old Mary Beth Tinker, sixteen year old Christopher Eckhardt, and a group of other adults and students gathered at the house of the Eckhardts’ to hold a meeting. At the meeting the group of people decided to support their truce to what happened during the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands during the holiday season. The principle of Des Monies School (the defendant) found out about the plan and held a meeting to that created a policy that any student wearing armbands would be asked to take them off, refusal to do so would result in suspension. On December 16, 1965 Mary Beth Tinker (the plaintiff) and Christopher Eckhardt wore black armbands to school, and were sent home. The next day Mary Beth Tinkers brother, John Tinker, did the same thing and was sent home. The students did not return until after New Year Day, the planned end to the protest. With their parents help the student sued the school for violating the students’ right for expression.
Issue Presented
Is there are rule against wearing armbands to a public school as a symbolic protest? Does taking the right for students to wear armbands to a public school violate students’ freedom of speech protections from the First Amendment? Did the …show more content…
students who wore the armbands disrupt any school learning?
Holding
Yes, there was a policy created saying that any students who wore armbands to school would be asked to take them off and if refused to do so the student would be suspended.
Although this policy was created two days before the protest because the principle found out about the protest and held a meeting to create a policy against wearing armbands. Yes, telling students that they can not wear armbands for protest purposes does violate students’ freedom of speech protections from the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that without evidence that the rule against wearing armbands to avoid interference, than the rule is not permissible. Yes, and no because learning was able to proceed but students were distracted by the
armbands.
Implications
The Supreme Court ruled in Tinker’s favor with a seven to two vote. This impacts actual people because students are constantly having rules saying what they may or may not be able to wear to school. Students being able to protest against something they believe in should be encouraged if what they are protesting does not disrupt any school learning. With the Supreme Court ruling and saying that the students had the right to wear the armbands for a protest as long as it did not disrupt any school learning , shows students that they should support causes.
In December of 1965 fifteen year old Mary Beth Tinker, sixteen year old Christopher Eckhardt, and a group of other adults and students gathered at the house of the Eckhardts’ to hold a meeting. At the meeting the group of people decided to support their truce to what happened during the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands during the holiday season. The principle of Des Monies School (the defendant) found out about the plan and held a meeting to that created a policy that any student wearing armbands would be asked to take them off, refusal to do so would result in suspension. On December 16, 1965 Mary Beth Tinker (the plaintiff) and Christopher Eckhardt wore black armbands to school, and were sent home. The next day Mary Beth Tinkers brother, John Tinker, did the same thing and was sent home. The students did not return until after New Year Day, the planned end to the protest. With their parents help the student sued the school for violating the students’ right for expression.
Issue Presented
Is there are rule against wearing armbands to a public school as a symbolic protest? Does taking the right for students to wear armbands to a public school violate students’ freedom of speech protections from the First Amendment? Did the …show more content…
students who wore the armbands disrupt any school learning?
Holding
Yes, there was a policy created saying that any students who wore armbands to school would be asked to take them off and if refused to do so the student would be suspended.
Although this policy was created two days before the protest because the principle found out about the protest and held a meeting to create a policy against wearing armbands. Yes, telling students that they can not wear armbands for protest purposes does violate students’ freedom of speech protections from the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that without evidence that the rule against wearing armbands to avoid interference, than the rule is not permissible. Yes, and no because learning was able to proceed but students were distracted by the
armbands.
Implications
The Supreme Court ruled in Tinker’s favor with a seven to two vote. This impacts actual people because students are constantly having rules saying what they may or may not be able to wear to school. Students being able to protest against something they believe in should be encouraged if what they are protesting does not disrupt any school learning. With the Supreme Court ruling and saying that the students had the right to wear the armbands for a protest as long as it did not disrupt any school learning , shows students that they should support causes.